A lucky accident got me thinking about one of the most important questions a person could ask: is war inevitable? Or can human beings ever abolish war?

It wasn't a question already on my mind. I was thinking about war, but in more ambivalent terms. I was thinking how horrible it could be for Afghans the next few years, whether the US stays or goes. I don't wish the Taliban on anyone, especially women and girls.

I was thinking politically incorrect thoughts about Obama's kill list, too. Pick off terrorist warriors one by one and stop invading whole countries? Maybe, a good idea.

But the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq in December was a rare and stunning moment: the actual end of a war – at least, for Americans. My country had been at war in Iraq since 1991, after the invasion of Kuwait. I watched in dismay as that war for oil lit up CNN like a video game console, and Americans cheered like it was a Fourth of July fireworks show.

"Those lights are real, not special effects, people," I wanted to shout. "Human beings are dying under those explosions." For 12 years after that, the US and Saddam Hussein were enemy collaborators in the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqi children under the US sanctions regime. Saddam didn't care about the children, so he allowed the sanctions to hurt them instead of him.

The US didn't care enough to try something other than the sanctions, even though they were being used in that way. That was bad enough. Then came Bush and Cheney's grotesque war of choice.

To me, one of the worst things about the argument for war in Iraq was that it consciously sought to lower the moral standard for a just war. They told us that preventive war is just when it saves lives, using Hitler as an analogy. But stopping Hitler in, say, 1938, as he was already on the march, was hardly the same thing. The argument for war in Iraq was that after 11 September 2001, we had to invade and occupy the country because Saddam Hussein, though already penned in by us, might someday develop nuclear weapons, which he might someday share with al-Qaida, with which he had no discernible relationship or affinity.

That was no war of prevention. It was a war of hypothesis. A giant step backward for just war theory. Another 100,000 Iraqis or more would have to die for that?

Actually, when the final withdrawal came in late December, I was so numb from watching the 20-year horror show that I hardly felt any relief or sense of drama. But two producers of my program, Paige Cowett and Megan Ryan, were less burnt-out and more in touch with their feelings about the momentousness of the turning point. They were inspired to think the ultimate thought: maybe we can go on, next, to ending war, period.

Then came the lucky accident. Just as they were thinking that thought, in came the new book by science writer John Horgan, The End of War. Synchronicity! Paige and Megan decided it was time to go big – to recruit John Horgan and use our privileged position as producers of a major talk show to break free from the shallow drip of the news cycle and aim for the sky.

Horgan's argument is essentially Margaret Mead's: that war is an invention, like cooking, writing or marriage. He thinks humanity can abolish war, in part because we abolished slavery. If slavery was such an ordinary part of human culture that it was accepted as a given in the Bible, but today, no nation or person could ever admit they hold a slave, then culture could change enough to abolish war, too – and maybe, more quickly than we think.

What's more, Horgan thinks there are no preconditions to abolishing war. Most people who even flirt with the idea conclude that certain things need to happen first: almost all nations need to become democracies, the gap between rich and poor nations must greatly diminish, women must have half the political power in the world.

But Horgan says no. To end war, just advocate for the unacceptability of war. In all countries, at all times, especially when tensions rise.

In our series, I was surprised to discover how many prominent people had thought about the question and had a ready answer. Among those who think war can be abolished is Jimmy Carter, who said:

"Even the most intense disagreements and the most intense personal animosity between two people or two nations can be resolved through the application of Christian principles and with the help of a trusted mediator, either a counselor in a church or a mediator – like I played a small role between Egypt and Israel."

"I don't think that you can eliminate the martial spirit in the human condition. The insecurity, fears and anxieties that we have, knowing that our bodies will be extinguished one day, generate deep anxiety. The question is, what do you target? I view myself as a warrior for kindness, a warrior for tenderness, a warrior for sweetness, a warrior against injustice and unfairness."

Professor West may be closer to the mainstream than he realizes. One of the most myth-busting ideas Horgan introduced me to was the notion that war comes not because we have evolved for aggression, but rather because we have evolved for empathy and altruism. The theory is that people fight wars because we so passionately want to protect the members of our group, not because we are bent on taking from others.

But there are almost always alternative ways to defend our families and countries. That's why George W Bush's redefinition of preventive war to include hypothetical threats was so troubling. It set up war as a solution to uncertainty, not just as a last resort. It embraced the martial response to Professor West's existential angst in the least conscious possible way. It took history in the wrong direction.

So, do I think war can be abolished? Now that we've concluded the series, I have changed my mind in a way; and in a way, not. I still think prerequisites are necessary, especially regarding gender. Men and women are both territiorial, both competitive; both will kill or die to protect their young. But sorry, guys: testosterone fights with gunpowder with much less provocation. Have you seen who commits violent crime lately? Or ever?

My plan to abolish war begins with the education of every girl, starting at birth, starting today. And take a good look at the few countries that have gender quotas for parliament, blunt an instrument as that is, to see if more nations should consider adopting them. The ancient Greek play "Lysistrata" cast women as peace activists who withheld sex from their men until they ended the Peloponnesian war. Something more is required if war is to end.

But Horgan has convinced me that a modern abolition movement could be towar what an earlier abolition movement was to slavery. A "Just Say No to War" campaign, or a War Abolition Movement, could attach itself to any budding conflict situation, denouncing all talk of war as rarely a solution to anything. It won't stop every despot, or every religious extremist with a violent cult. But it could seek to paint war as an anachronism, and to define the next era in human culture, to change the conversation about heroism and patriotism and piety – to retire war as an obsolete invention, as Horgan and Margaret Mead might put it.

The end of war is not around the corner. Another 20-year horror like the Iraq war is more likely than not. But the end of war is only a foolish dream if we allow it to be, by declining to talk in those sweeping terms because it feels too "pie-in-the-sky".

Dedicated activists will have to run with it from there. Is anyone reading this up for trying?